4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of Hydrogels Prepared with Ionic-Liquid-Isolated vs Commercial Chitin and Cellulose

Journal

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 471-480

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsSuSchemeng.5b01400

Keywords

Hydrogel; Aerogel; Chitin; Cellulose; Ionic liquid; Release

Funding

  1. 525 Solutions, Inc.
  2. DOE SBIR Office of Science [DE-SC0010152]
  3. China Scholarship Council [201306600007]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0010152] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Physical and/or covalently linked (chemical) hydrogels were prepared from chitin and cellulose extracted with ionic liquid from shrimp shells and wood biomass, respectively, and compared with hydrogels prepared from commercially available biopolymers, practical grade chitin, and microcrystalline cellulose. The highly porous aerogels were formed by initial dissolution of the biopolymers in NaOH/urea aqueous systems using freeze/thaw cycles, followed by thermal treatment (with or without epichlorohydrin as a cross-linker) and supercritical CO2 drying. The ionic-liquid-extracted cellulose pulp and chitin, as well as practical grade chitin could form both stable physical and chemical hydrogels, whereas biopolymers of lower apparent molecular weight such as microcrystalline cellulose required a covalent cross-linker for hydrogel formation and commercially available pure chitin was not suitable for the preparation of hydrogels of either type. Hydrogels prepared from the ionic-liquid extracted biopolymers exhibited properties substantially different from those made from the commercially available biopolymers. Loading of an active ingredient into the hydrogel and its subsequent release was demonstrated using indigo carmine and revealed that the release rate was controlled mainly by the biopolymer concentration of the gel network

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available